Here, good and valorous men were unwilling to harm the fatherland and take wealth, but rather wanted to not be harmed by base men; but it was then possible for base men, who always desired both power and wealth...

I was taught that a μέν could not go on its own, and needed a δέ, but there isn't one in the first sentence. Hm...

Here, good and valorous men were unwilling to harm the fatherland and take wealth, but rather wanted to not be harmed by base men; but it was then possible for base men, who always desired both power and wealth...

I was taught that a μέν could not go on its own, and needed a δέ, but there isn't one in the first sentence. Hm...

I didn't notice any errors, although I don't see where you are getting "it was then possible" (presumably after the dot-dot-dot). If there is a "then" in the second part of your sentence, then ἐνθάδε probably means something like "now" (since they are in adversative clauses).

It looks like τοῖς δὲ πονηροῖς contains the δέ that you are looking for. Also, this might just be a transliteration problem, but you are writing both your rhos and pis with the symbol for pi (π, as in *πονηπῶν). Hopefully you are making the distinction in your head that your fingers are not

benissimus wrote:I didn't notice any errors, although I don't see where you are getting "it was then possible" (presumably after the dot-dot-dot). If there is a "then" in the second part of your sentence, then ἐνθάδε probably means something like "now" (since they are in adversative clauses).

Yeah, there was an ἐξῆν further along in the passage, as well as a τότε. The book never told me about adversative clauses, guess they just assumed I'd realise it. ἐνθάδε was given as here/there, I didn't think of it in the temporal sense. Thanks!

It looks like τοῖς δὲ πονηροῖς contains the δέ that you are looking for.

Wow, I didn't know δέ could come such a long way away and the semicolon in between threw me off.

Also, this might just be a transliteration problem, but you are writing both your rhos and pis with the symbol for pi (π, as in *πονηπῶν). Hopefully you are making the distinction in your head that your fingers are not

And I was told I got the τὸν καλὸν wrong, and it had to be nominative...I didn't quite understand, doesn't δοκείν take an object?

δοκεῖν in this construction takes an infinitive -- in this case you have εἶναι (which can be dropped) so καλός is a predicate adjective, and in general, these will agree with the case of the noun they refer to, even if that might contradict the usual rules. So here καλός refers to ὁ ἄδικος and so stays in the nominative. (That doesn't sound to clear but as an other example, "of those who seem wise" is "τῶν δοκούντων σοφῶν εἶναι".)

You have an extra δοκεῖν by mistake there. Also, I'm not sure the μεν...δε... construction works there. I think just δέ or ἀλλά would work.

The men have breastplates and shields, but are not brave.

τοῖς ἄνδρασι θύρακες καὶ ἀσπίδες εὶσιν ἀλλά οὐκ ἀγαθοὶ

Did I do the right thing in putting ἀγαθός into nominative here? Should it be dative?

The dative wouldn't work, but with the nominative, at least for me, I read the sentence as saying the breastplates and shields aren't good. I think it'd be better to use ἔχω in this case.

δοκεῖν in this construction takes an infinitive -- in this case you have εἶναι (which can be dropped) so καλός is a predicate adjective, and in general, these will agree with the case of the noun they refer to, even if that might contradict the usual rules. So here καλός refers to ὁ ἄδικος and so stays in the nominative. (That doesn't sound to clear but as an other example, "of those who seem wise" is "τῶν δοκούντων σοφῶν εἶναι".)

I think I understand how the sentence works when it's written like:

[The unjust man] as a result of doing wrong but seeming virtuous, wins for himself wealth and honour.

The dative wouldn't work, but with the nominative, at least for me, I read the sentence as saying the breastplates and shields aren't good. I think it'd be better to use ἔχω in this case.

The source of my confusion here was that I had some trouble getting my head around how ἐιμί worked (like in the first sentence), whether the ἀγαθός had to agree with the subject...

Nooj wrote:I hope I'm not wearing out your patience, but my textbook doesn't seem to explain this very well.

I don't know if everyone else's patience is worn out, but I don't mind jumping in! Part of the confusion might be about the words "the former" and "the latter" themselves, because they aren't used much in English anymore; I always have to pause and think for a second whenever I encounter them. When you list two things and then refer back to them, the first thing is what we call "the former" in English; you call it ἐκεῖνος in Greek because it's more distant from you in time (or space on the page). The second thing is "the latter," and it's οὗτος in Greek because it's nearer to you. They key is that they're nearer or more distant from the perspective of looking back at them. For example:

Σωκράτης καὶ Πλάτων εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὴν ἀγοράν· ἐκεῖνος μὲν γέρων ἦν, οὗτος δὲ νεανίας."Socrates and Plato came into the agora; the former was an old man, the latter was young."

Smyth (1261) points out that this is not really a strict rule; sometimes ἐκεῖνος refers to the second of the two things, so you have to pay close attention and use common sense in figuring it out.

I'm sorry for not replying, but I've been away from the computer for a looong while and only recently got back. Your explanation was invaluable to me Damoetas! I don't know the expression for thank you in Greek yet, but that's what I'd be saying if I knew it.

Moooore questions!

My textbook states:

Subject of Infinitive. When the subject of the action expressed by the infinitive is expressed in Greek, it is normally in the accusative case unless it is the same person or thing as the subject of the finite verb (there are further exceptions to be learned later).

And it gives an example of the subject in accusative case, like: δεῖ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους πόνους φέρεινIt is necessary for men to endure toil.

My question is, what would be an example of a subject not being in the accusative case (in other words, the same person being the subject of the finite verb?). Something like 'the men want themselves to endure toil' with themselves/ἀυτοί in some case other than accusative?

A second question, it gives another sentence that is giving me headaches:

ἐκ τοῦ τὸν κακὸν ναύτην ἄρχειν.As a result of the bad sailor's being leader.(as a result of the fact that the bad sailor is leader)

Now the way I translate infinitives used as substantive nouns is to make the infinitive the subject. So δεῖ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους πόνους φέρειν would be 'to endure the toils is necessary for the men'. But if I try to do that for ἐκ τοῦ τὸν κακὸν ναύτην ἄρχειν, I get 'as a result of being leader for the bad soldier', which seems like rubbish English. But would it be literally correct? Have I got the grammatical conception of it down pat?

Nooj wrote:My question is, what would be an example of a subject not being in the accusative case (in other words, the same person being the subject of the finite verb?). Something like 'the men want themselves to endure toil' with themselves/ἀυτοί in some case other than accusative?

I'm not really sure what they mean -- do they give any examples? The basic thing is that when the subject of the accusative is the same as the subject of the finite verb, the subject is implied, but when it's explicit, I believe it normally has to be in the accusative. You can read the details from Smyth's grammar at http://artfl.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philo ... monographs. But whatever the case, I'd say it's not a major issue.

There's a separate issue that words like adjectives that modify the subject of the infinitive are normally in the accusative but when that's the same as the subject of the finite verb and is unexpressed, then they'll be in the nominative. So αὐτοί would in fact be in the nominative in your example. But you're using Mastronarde, right? If I remember correctly, he explains this and similar things (usually called attraction) very well.

A second question, it gives another sentence that is giving me headaches:

ἐκ τοῦ τὸν κακὸν ναύτην ἄρχειν.As a result of the bad sailor's being leader.(as a result of the fact that the bad sailor is leader)

Now the way I translate infinitives used as substantive nouns is to make the infinitive the subject. So δεῖ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους πόνους φέρειν would be 'to endure the toils is necessary for the men'. But if I try to do that for ἐκ τοῦ τὸν κακὸν ναύτην ἄρχειν, I get 'as a result of being leader for the bad soldier', which seems like rubbish English. But would it be literally correct? Have I got the grammatical conception of it down pat?

I think the problem is rendering the subject of the infinitive using "for", which only really works in certain kinds of sentences, like the impersonal ones with δεῖ, where you can make the infinitive the subject of a verb (and even there, most verbs like that use the dative, e.g. ἔξεστι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις πόνους φέρειν, where you get the usual dative ~ "for"). In ἐκ τοῦ... there's nothing for infinitive to be the subject of, so you just need to translate the subject of infinitive as the subject of whatever English form you use to translate the infinitive.

There's a separate issue that words like adjectives that modify the subject of the infinitive are normally in the accusative but when that's the same as the subject of the finite verb and is unexpressed, then they'll be in the nominative. So αὐτοί would in fact be in the nominative in your example. But you're using Mastronarde, right? If I remember correctly, he explains this and similar things (usually called attraction) very well.

Yep, but it's at the end of the book so I had to flip forward to next semester's batch of work to find it:

The subject of an infinitive, when expressed, is normally in the accusative, and so predicate nouns or adjectives are accusative in agreement. But when the subject of the infinitive is the same as the (nominative) subject of the governing verb, the subject of the infinitive is unexpressed and predicate nouns or adjectives are in the nominative by attraction.

Could this be what my passage was talking about, in a round-about way? I think I'll have a talk with my lecturer...thank you for that link by the way, it looks extremely useful.

Okee dokie, now I'm jumping all over the place. I'm reading a book by the name of 'A new short guide to the accentuation of Ancient Greek' by Philomen Probert. He writes:

Notice that the accent marks as printed in our modern texts are always placed, when they occur on a diphthong, over the second element of the diphthong (βασιλεύς, βασιλεῦ). In the case of the circumflex this is rather misleading: the circumflex indicates a high pitch on the first part of the diphthong, although it is written over the second.

I'm struggling to pronounce different parts of the diphthong in different pitches because they mix together in my mind. I think the eu in βασιλεύς is supposed to sound like the English 'feud' with a higher pitch on the second part. So basiliyoOOs...? I was wondering if you knew of any recordings of people attempting to speak in ancient Greek. It's a minor question, but when reading out sentences, I want to say it properly.

The subject of an infinitive, when expressed, is normally in the accusative, and so predicate nouns or adjectives are accusative in agreement. But when the subject of the infinitive is the same as the (nominative) subject of the governing verb, the subject of the infinitive is unexpressed and predicate nouns or adjectives are in the nominative by attraction.

Could this be what my passage was talking about, in a round-about way?

It would make more sense if he's talking about that -- attraction (and this is only one example of it) is a regular feature of Greek, and kind of odd in that things have the "wrong" case, so it's not something that's obvious when you come across it.

Notice that the accent marks as printed in our modern texts are always placed, when they occur on a diphthong, over the second element of the diphthong (βασιλεύς, βασιλεῦ). In the case of the circumflex this is rather misleading: the circumflex indicates a high pitch on the first part of the diphthong, although it is written over the second.

I'm struggling to pronounce different parts of the diphthong in different pitches because they mix together in my mind. I think the eu in βασιλεύς is supposed to sound like the English 'feud' with a higher pitch on the second part. So basiliyoOOs...? I was wondering if you knew of any recordings of people attempting to speak in ancient Greek. It's a minor question, but when reading out sentences, I want to say it properly.

About ευ though, it's not like "feud" -- this pronunciation is limited to English speakers and is the result of English sound changes (e.g. Germans traditionally pronounce it like the "oy" in "boy" because that's how "eu" is pronounced in German). The classical pronunciation was just ε + [u], which as far as I know doesn't exist at all in English, so I can't give any examples, but it's just a diphthong that starts at ε and ends at [u]. (I don't write υ because υ was like French y except as the second element of diphthongs where it preserved the [u] sound.)

About the accent, the long story has to do with "morae" -- long vowels and diphthongs are considered to have two morae, and the difference between the acute and the circumflex is whether the high-pitch falls on the first mora (acute) or on the second (circumflex). This explains why short vowels only have one kind of accent. In diphthongs like ευ, you have the first mora is ε and the second is [u], so the difference between the two accents is that as you glide from ε to [u], you either start at a high pitch or end at a high pitch. But it basically comes down to εύ having a rising pitch and εῦ having a falling pitch (I believe that's the most common interpretation -- in the absence of recordings it's hard to know precisely what things sounded like and there's disagreement -- I know some sources see the circumflex as a rising-falling pitch).

(I'm not sure how long diphthongs are understood with morae, and how that works with ηυ for example, but there too, rising acute vs. falling circumflex works fine.)

Any tips on learning the imperfect forms of εἶμι? I can get the present conjugation fine, but the imperfect conjugation seems to use multiple stems and odd endings in the singular. In particular these:

I've tried to translate 'a beautiful work belongs to everyone who hears it'. Is this a close approximation?

ἡ καλὰ ποίησίς ἐστι τὸ μέρος πάντων οἳ αὐτῆς ἤκουσαν.

Grammatically it's fine except that it should be καλὴ. I'm thinking, though, that this is somewhere where you'd use a participle rather than a relative clause, so something like ἐστι παντὸς τοῦ ἀκούοντος αὐτῆς.

We're up to participles now and they're rather lovely things. I'm also amused at the 'gentive absolute'. If you had to choose...ablative absolute or genitive absolute?

Participles are my favourite part of Greek and I suspect they're a huge part of why people have considered it an elegant language. You know, there's also an accusative absolute in Greek .

Still, the difficulty of which you are doubting remains, concerning the good men. Why in the world are good men teaching to their sons these things which fall under the jurisdiction of teachers and making them wise, while they are making their sons better than no one in that wisdom which is...

And concerning this matter, Socrates, I will no longer call it a fable but a story. For it is necessary to think. What is there or what isn't there that all citizens must share in, if in fact it is likely to be a city? For in this matter, this difficulty is released, which you doubt in no other place. For if it exists, that one thing is not carpentry, nor bronzeworking, nor ceramics, but righteousness and moderation and being holy. Taken all together, I call this one thing the virtue of a man.

I don't understand the use of ἀπορεῖς here. Nor do I understand how the bolded section works. That just made me throw my hands up. Please, could someone help?

I know that was rather a lot to ask of you guys, so thanks very much for the swift replies.

modus.irrealis wrote:For οὐδενός, I read it as a genitive of comparison, i.e. οὐδενὸς βελτίους ποιοῦσιν = they don't make them better than anyone, which is another possibility.

Well the thing that really threw me off was ἣν αὐτοί ἐισιν ἀγαθοὶ. I don't understand what an accusative ἣν was doing there, because I can't see a verb that goes with it - is it an accusative of respect? 'in which they themselves are virtuous'?

So Socrates is puzzled why good men are teaching their sons other things that belong to the purview of teachers, but not 'virtue' and Protagoras is...well, I'm not sure how he's addressing Socrates' concerns, but I guess I should read the full context in a book.

Nooj wrote:Well the thing that really threw me off was ἣν αὐτοί ἐισιν ἀγαθοὶ. I don't understand what an accusative ἣν was doing there, because I can't see a verb that goes with it - is it an accusative of respect? 'in which they themselves are virtuous'?

Exactly. I'd say this is pretty common with adjectives like ἀγαθός or σοφός (and their opposites).

Just so I would know for my own translations, why have u decided to use the perfect for exaggerate?

Well I couldn't think of another aspect to go along with it. My textbook says that the perfect aspect describes a completed action with a continuing result, which seemed to me adequate in this instance.

John 2:8 uses ἀρχιτρίκλῑνος which is usually translated as something like master of ceremonies. I'm interested in the second part of the word though, 'triclinium'. It's hard to believe that Galilee, probably something like a backwater in what was itself a backwater province, had been Hellenised/Romanised to the extent that they actually had three couches at the wedding and people lay down on it, like some sort of symposium.

I find it fascinating that the author, whoever he was, used such a Hellenistic term to describe a Jewish concept. Was it just a word that had lost its original meaning by that time, like the invocation 'by Jove!' to us, so that he had no problem using it? Or did he equate the functions for the sake of an audience not familiar with Jewish culture? It definitely shows the difficulties in translating one cultural norm into the language of another.

Hi there, I'm trying to translate two sentences from English into Greek.

We do not know what we want and yet we are responsible for what we are - that is the fact.οὐκ μὲν ἴσμεν οὗτινος ἐρῶμεν, ἔτι δὲ αἴτιοί ἐσμεν τούτου ὅ ἐσμεν. I wasn't sure how to translate 'that is the fact'.

For the second one, a few suggestions:- Greek often omits the copula in sentences like this. The subject is indicated by which words are modified by an article (hence, the importance of "attributive" vs. "predicative" position).- Instead of a relative clause, I would use a participle. Also, "man" doesn't need to be explicit here; the participle is sufficient.

χαίρετε, χαίρετε.I am a newbie at TextKit. I've been studying greek through the italian edition of Athénaze for a couple of years. Lastly I've been struggling with Reading Greek. And I would like very much to participate in these forums. Today I offer a tentative solution and beg a question.

Nooj wrote:We do not know what we want and yet we are responsible for what we are - that is the fact.οὐκ μὲν ἴσμεν οὗτινος ἐρῶμεν, ἔτι δὲ αἴτιοί ἐσμεν τούτου ὅ ἐσμεν. I wasn't sure how to translate 'that is the fact'.

Now my question. It is about accentuation in the following optatives. Why

δυναίμηνδύναιοδύναιτο....

whileἀνισταίμηνἀνισταῖο (look at the accent )ἀνισταῖτο...

Thank you, membersχαίρετε

I am writing in Ancient Greek not because I know Greek well, but because I hope that it will improve my fluency in reading. I got the idea for this signature from Markos over on the Agora forum here at Textkit. Every suggestion as to improve my Greek will be welcome.

I don't understand why an optative ἁμαρτάνοι is being used here. The fearing clause needs a secondary tense verb to introduce it in order for an optative to be used, but φοβούμενος is in the present tense...

could it be that within the context of this sentence, the present participle stands for the imperfect?if so, the verb in the fear clause can change to the optative, and you also see that in the purpose clauseyou have ἄρχοι instead of subj. ἄρχῃ.

I am writing in Ancient Greek not because I know Greek well, but because I hope that it will improve my fluency in reading. I got the idea for this signature from Markos over on the Agora forum here at Textkit. Every suggestion as to improve my Greek will be welcome.